× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: no Java in XP Windows
  • From: "John Taylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:21:19 -0600
  • Importance: Normal

Chris,

> Not at all, John. I've been very specific.

I don't remember reading it. With all due respect Chris, I can't keep track
of where you're going to bounce next. When I suggest that a court remedy
involves court imposed restrictions on the business practices, you say no.
ie:

From John:

"Ok, now you're talking about a lot more than simply breaking the company
up. You're talking about some specific court imposed restrictions on how
they
do business; namely:

1) Bundling for marketing purposes.
2) Opening up the API."

Chris' reply:

"I don't think there is any reason to have court restrictions in these
areas."


Yet, when I then try to focus the conversation upon the implications of a
mere breakup, you switch gears again; ie:

"When a company is a monopoly, they automatically force customers
to adapt to them. That is the definition of monopoly. If their customers had
a real choice, they wouldn't be a monopoly.

So, since they by default force customers along, there must be additional
behavior considerations to keep them from forcing their customers to put out
of business their favorite vendors."


Sweet Jesus man, you're like a politician.



> You, on the other hand have a
> concept in mind that you cannot see around.
> I tell you what, so that I can
> get an idea of how breaking up the company won't work (since my example of
> the Bells doesn't work) please give me an example of where two companies
> which are in different industries are using their monopoly control to keep
> each other in monopoly position.

I'm not familiar enough with U.S. Antitrust case law to definitively comment
on this one way or the other. If I were interested enough to research
it --which I'm not-- I'd begin by trying to find an example of a breakup
order that didn't include trade restrictions. This is where you would find
the most potential for such abuse.


> I think your concept of the two company conspiracy is a little weak. But I
> think the problem is that you don't really visualize the companies as
> broken
> up. Or maybe you think what I mean is that once everybody is moved to two
> different buildings, that counts as broken up and we can all go home.

You're right. That is the problem. I'm not visualizing anything. I'm asking
you to describe what you feel is an appropriate solution. However, you have
these presumptions in your own mind which you haven't shared with us in
sufficient detail.


> But I see broken up as the two entities being separated into two different
> groups which do not treat each other as if they are the same company. When
> you say, "They'll just be the same as they are now." you are just saying,
> "They aren't broken up." That is why we go around in circles. You say,
"How
> will breakup up change anything?" and then "They won't be broken up so it
> won't change anything."


This is one of those key presumptions that I'm talking about. When you talk
about the breakup, you never make any mention of ownership. Yet this is a
crucial factor. Does Billy G. get to retain majority ownership in both
companies, or not?

Because if he can legally remain in control of those companies, then it
should be obvious enough that a breakup without severe trade restrictions
wouldn't work.

> So let's try to make a little progress, okay? Will you admit that if they
> were actually broken up into two separate entities that did not treat each
> other as if they were the same company there would be a benefit?

I don't have any problem "admitting" to anything. If you state the details
of the separation, and they make sense, I won't hesitate to concede that it
might work. Right now, your position is to ambiguous for me to decide
whether I agree with it or not.

>
> In this fantasy visualization let us go to extremes and say that all the
> major stockholders who were executives in either company were forced to
> trade in their stock from the company they did not work for for stock in
the
> company they do work for so that they didn't lose dollar equity.


Forget the fantasy visualizations! Is this a part of the breakup order or
not? If not, should it be?


<Whole bunch of stuff snipped to avoid slowing down the internet>


> But John, I have already been forced to buy IE, right? When I paid for my
> OS, I was forced to pay for the browser delivered with it. I had no choice
> at all. So now you would like me to go and buy another solution as well.


Well no, Chris, you didn't pay for it as part of the OS - you still don't.
IE was released as a separate product and made available as a free download
for anyone. It still is. Of course it was MS that created it, so you're
paying for it indirectly if you buy any of MS' products, but you can't
directly tie that back to the OS.

And that's just one of the problems in this complicated situation. MS
doesn't have to bundle anything into the OS in order to get it into the
marketplace. They just have to make it available as a free download.


> And
> if there was a product for me to buy that I felt was worth using, I surely
> would buy it. But I'd feel pretty ripped off because I was forced to buy
> IE anyway, right?

So you're saying that the only reason you use IE is because there isn't a
competitive product that you consider to be a superior alternative. If there
was, you'd buy it.

Hmm...




> So you feel I am dishonest because I am using the things I have been
forced
> to buy?

Hey, it's bad enough to put words in one's mouth, but it's totally
unacceptable when that includes fabricating accusations. I didn't call you
dishonest, nor did I imply it.


> John, what you are saying is that you are fine with the fact that
> I am forced to support the software you want. That is the nature of our
> disagreement on this issue. I have no qualms at all about allowing you to
> continue to buy every crummy product MS wants to push into the market. But
> I want the option of buying better products _instead_ .

And I'm saying that you do. You can buy Opera anytime you like, if you
consider it better. You can even get Netscape for free, if you consider it
better. I'm not pointing this out in an effort to say that MS has been
wrongly judged --they are a feakin monopoly-- I'm doing it to point out the
fallacy of this argument, so that we can hopefully put it to rest.

> But you opened the wound here, John.

What wound? What did I say? (I wish I had an emoticon for puzzled)

> You want to know what really ticks me
> off? When I was an OS/2 user and I wanted to buy a new computer, because
> of Microsoft's illegal operations I was forced to buy a copy of Windows.

You're absolutely right. It pissed me off too. It was not right, and they
should have been nailed on it a long time ago. Like James said, this is the
true cause of their monopoly.


John Taylor

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.